Pa. natural gas interests spent $1.3 million on lobbying

John L. Micek

Sunday

May 27, 2012 at 7:33 AMMay 27, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Five of Pennsylvania's largest natural gas drilling interests spent a staggering $1.3 million to lobby state government from January through March as lawmakers and the Corbett administration worked to approve a new impact fee on the industry.

Leading the pack was the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group based in southwestern Pennsylvania. The group spent $978,766 during the first three months of the year trying to influence government, disclosure records show.

Rounding out the top five were the drilling company Range Resources, $133,766; Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, $111,099; Shell Oil, $102,400 and Spectra Energy Transmission, $48,088, records show. The four companies and the industry trade group also led the pack on lobbying expenses during the first nine months of 2011.

A spokesman for Range Resources did not return several calls seeking comment for this story.

a spokesman for the trade group defended its lobbying efforts, arguing in a statement the coalition is "committed to a fact-based dialogue and providing key stakeholders with information related to responsible natural gas development."

"Like any industry that supports more than 200,000 jobs in the Commonwealth and provides every Pennsylvanian with affordable and reliable energy, our educational and outreach activities are going to match the size of these efforts," spokesman Steve Forde said. "Ensuring that policymakers and the public are well informed on issues pertaining to natural gas development is a key tenet of our organization's mission and something we will continue to do in the months and years ahead."

Debate on the impact fee, which covers the public cost of natural gas exploration, was one of the first tasks facing lawmakers as they returned to session earlier this year. Gov. Tom Corbett signed the bill, now known as Act 13, into law in February. It is expected to raise $190 million in its first year, rising to $333 million annually in 15 years.

The vote also marked the end -- at least for the foreseeable future -- of any effort to impose an additional levy on the booming industry, whose supporters argue it already pays taxes and remits royalties for its activities on public lands.

Environmentalists pushed hard for a "severance tax," or a tax on the natural gas drillers actually take out of the ground. They dismissed the impact fee as an industry giveaway, decrying its lower rate and what they said were insufficient environmental protections.

Clean Water Action, one of the most ardent drilling opponents, spent $4,978 during the same time period, highlighting the vast gulf separating the deep-pocketed industry from its self-appointed non-government watchdogs.

A spokesman for Clean Water Action, Steve Hvozdovich, downplayed the cash advantage the industry had over the environmental activists, arguing that good grassroots organizing can be just as effective in reaching lawmakers and spreading its message.

"They wouldn't feel the need to spend so much if it were not for the pressure coming from the other side," he said.

Another environmental group, Harrisburg-based Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, spent $39,061 during the first quarter of 2012. The state chapter of the Sierra Club reported $8,075 in lobbying expenses, while the activist group PennEnvironment, which has offices in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, reported spending nothing, records show.

The lopsided totals also work to the environmentalists' advantage because they "can use them to portray how uneven the playing field is," said Christopher Borick, a political science professor at Muhlenberg College in Allentown."It's hard, when you're so vastly outspent, to be able to provide the same influence," he said. "But it's not impossible if you have good arguments and can leverage your resources to get the public to line up in agreement with you."

But even though the records show how much lobbyists spend, it's difficult to tell precisely where the influence-brokers put their money and which lawmakers and public officials are influenced by their activities.

Pennsylvania's lobbyist disclosure law requires lobbyists and their principals -- the companies that hire them -- to file quarterly reports detailing how much they spend on gifts, travel and hospitality for public officials as well on what's known as "direct" and "indirect" communication with policymakers.

Under the law, "indirect communication" occurs when a lobbyist or group tries to persuade someone else to contact a public official or a policymaker. Think of those television commercials urging you to call your local legislator on a key issue.

Direct communication is a direct appeal to a legislator or a regulator on an issue. Factored into those costs are the research and supporting material it takes to make the argument.

In its quarterly report, the Marcellus Shale Coalition spent $343,438 on direct communication; $583,844 on indirect communication and nothing on gifts. Range Resources spent $133,177 on direct communication, nothing on indirect communication and reported $589 in gifts, travel or hospitality for policymakers, records show. The nature of those gifts or travel is not disclosed.

Muhlenberg's Borick called Pennsylvania's lobbying disclosure law "incomplete and ineffective."

"You get a bit of the picture with the bottom-line expenditures, but how that money is used and leveraged is uncertain," he said. "You aren't getting a full grasp of the dynamic taking place."